Thursday, May 29, 2014

For the fifteen to twenty years anyone who has followed veterans
affairs issues, particularly with regard to medical care would not surprised by
the recent scandal involving the American VA. In the early 90’s funding going
into the VA system shrank. WWII vets were becoming fewer and the VA was deemed
to be a place to help balance the budgetor free funds for Congress’s pet projects. Yes, the was an aging pool of
Korean and Vietnam vets that as they aged would need more support, but they
were still years away from needing more intensive support and by when they did
need such support the rapidly declining pool of WWII would soon be minimal.

Hence, over the 90s instead of facilities being updated, they
were allowed to age, and not always gracefully either. In the mid to late 90s facilities
were closing resulting in vets having travel two to three hours further to VA
hospitals for treatment and care. Some vets in the areas of the country by 2000
were traveling a half a day or more to reach their nearest VA hospital. The
overall strength of the medical staff not only decreased because of the
closures of hospitals but also from decreases in medical staff at existing
hospitals with aging and sometimes equipment that was not current.

The dedicated medical staff worked hard to care for those who
came under their care in the same or greater numbers while having less and less
resources to manage their care. And when this country went to war and its youth
came home wounded in body and spirit, increasing the annual budget was not a
priority of either Congress or the White House. In the 2000s to the present
there were some budgetary increases, but they were not nearly enough to make up
for the cuts, to modernize facilities, to open new facilities and clinics, to
increase staff. The VA continued to serve more and more with inadequate
resources.

With fewer and fewer resources, and with more demand, what is
the logical result? What happens at a remote busy gas station and half the
pumps are turned off? Lines and with longer wait times. And yet we are shocked
by longer wait times at underfunded, underequipped and understaffed hospitals?

Earlier this year Congress refused to take up and pass a bill
that would have given the VA an extra $2.1 million a year for the next ten
years. This has been going on for decades. Congress by its action continued
then and still does underfund the VA. Yet many of those who have underfunded
the VA have been the first to cry out in scorn at the VA and the President for breaking
faith with our veterans as if Congress and they themselves by their votes are
blameless. Political commentators cry out in alarm, but the story has been
there for decades and they did not cry.

Who has broken faith with our vets? It is not just this
President with our veterans! It is the prior President too! It is not just past
Congresses who bear a good part of the blame, but the current one as well. And
on a personal level, personal blame goes to each Congress member and Senator who has by their deliberate votes and willfully
turned a blind eye to VA underfunding. Add to the mix the political
commentators, politicians for their false horror, who push the story for
political attack purposes.

Each member of Congress who is pointing fingers elsewhere, who
is not accepting a portion of the blame and not saying, “I’m going to join
others to do something about the underfunding” are not only perpetuating the
problem, they are at the heart of the problem. They are breaking faith with our
vets. Shame on them!

The story has been there for years. From time to time over the
last decade there have been stories about the VA’s underfunding and growing
wait times. Often this is not a new story has been marginalized and yawned at. Now
it has finally has gained traction. And finally, I too am part of the problem
for not writing my Congressman and Senators more often about the VA’s
underfunding.

Dismissals are not the answer. The answer is simple, give the VA
the resources that they need to do the job that they are not only charged to
do, but want to do.

The citizens of the United States, including myself, and our
leaders who have broken faith with their veterans!!

Friday, May 23, 2014

Today I received from a firm working in the direct marketing
field an email about the US House’s proposal to allow the Postal Service to
convert 15+ million people to group mail boxes on their street who are
currently having mail delivered to their door. The article's tone suggests the
proposal was a bad idea and talked how I and my organization should resist the
change.

The rationale for moving to group boxes is logical. As the
proposal allows those with limited mobility to have mail delivery to their
door, the rationale for resisting the USPS efforts in this direction is anemic.
I am not downplaying the emotional element but it is more tied to people
feeling uncomfortable with change.I've experienced both, mail delivered to the door and group
boxes. By far, for three primary reasons, I prefer to have my mail delivered to a
group mail box than to the door.

1. Mail delivered to group boxes is more secure than mailed delivered
to the door. I don't have to worry about someone, maliciously or as a prank,
tampering/stealing my mail. One of the vehicles for stealing identities is
through the taking mail from mail boxes at the door step.

2. If I am away for two to four days, the mail does not build
up in my door side box and it giving a major clue to a thief that no one is
home. Arranging for a neighbor to gather the mail, or arranging for the Post Office hold the mail until I return is diminished.

3. It cuts delivery costs for the USPS by 25 to 30%. In group
boxes more homes can be serviced by one carrier than by someone walking from
door to door, particularly in areas where walking to the next house could by 40
or more yards away.

Friday, May 16, 2014

In yesterday’s
post I noted that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower
court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage,
civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading
several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some
of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are
arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.

Following
are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far
from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the
arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.

Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the
amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument
calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule
trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen
has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument
means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from
individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do
so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and
boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The
claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the
person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right
can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it.
The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or
lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside
their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not
the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation
where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.

What I find
most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate
principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a
founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the
arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies
representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British
citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights
that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the
majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if
this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and
Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.

Marriage is primarily about procreation,
and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist:This argument is simple, that my marriage, and
your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means
that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason
for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone
through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not
marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means
that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than
marriages that produce children.

Not only am I
extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around
having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a
sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my
wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that
June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified
to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions
and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through
good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a
contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by
this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument
as being solid and proper.

For anyone
who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if
you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches
have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally
claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of
marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital
relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s
love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the
husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having
children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the
ground for the marriage’s existence.

If this
argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if
the amendment’s defenders lost.

The State has the right to determine who can
procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers
are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have
children. Are we going to require people
to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have
children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a
certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household
income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother
would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to
have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work
a second or third job? This rationale sounds
too much like a totalitarian state argument.

Marriage is a fundamental right that
historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child
deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If
every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are
we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a
parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and
Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing
to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without
both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional
behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother
and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the
lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in
two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can
readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or
two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their
children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate
than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is
supportive and engaged with the children.

While there
are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research
into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number
of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or
lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of
studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that
will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and
politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that
lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their
position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted
have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are
the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend
to dismiss.

Regardless
of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s
say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if
we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to
remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or
greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a
felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about
removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be
physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes
whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous
studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk
rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start
removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so,
why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking
about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?

I find
myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the
amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid
and balanced arguments?

Thursday, May 15, 2014

As noted in
the prior post of yesterday, Virginia is gay marriage battleground, as well as gay
rights in general. Conservative Christians (those who take issue with the use
of “conservative Christians” in this context should read the prior post) are
staunchly defending the 2006 Virginia Constitutional Amendment that enshrines
marriage as being only between a man and woman. The amendment not only
prohibits gay marriage but prohibits within Virginia the recognition in any
manner of such marriages that occur in other states. If a gay couple is married
in another state and move to Virginia, they are not married. Further, the amendment
also prohibits “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships”. The message is clear,
strong and unapologetic. If you are in a gay relationship, do not come to
Virginia for you and your partner will have no recognition in any form.

This week the
4th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a lower court
ruling permitting gay marriage.No
matter the ruling of the 4th Court, the case is likely to end up in
the Supreme Court and force that Court to deal with the heart of the matter,
whether it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.

Conservatives,
particularly conservative Christians, are livid that the current Virginia
Attorney General, Mark Herring, is not defending the ban and Constitutional Amendment,
leaving the legal team for the two clerks who denied the gay couples wedding
licenses to argue the case before the 4th Circuit rather than the
Attorney General. It is argued regardless of his reading of the US Constitution
and view of the legality of Virginia’s amendment that the AG is duty bound to
defend it, and not to do so is commonly described as a betrayal of his oath, a
betrayal the demands his immediate removal from office.

At first
sight it would appear that not having the AG office arguing in defense of the
amendment means a less skilled team has to take over and that the arguments
will be less forceful than would be the AG’s arguments. The implication is that
lawyers for the clerks are second string or minor leaguers. I not only disagree
but argue for the contrary for the team headed by David Oakley is highly skilled,
arguing by conviction and are driven as to the rightness of their cause and the
amendment, and lastly, they are being well supported by the religious right
with funds, research.

The second
team headed by Austin Nimocks is equally strong and are part of highly
conservative traditional marriage defense group, a strongly funded group that
is well skilled in crafting its message, and have long had their key arguments
well formed. As such neither Nimocks nor Oakley are well skilled and positioned
for handling this type of case.

Further, who
would you rather have argue your case, a lawyer who does not believe in the strength
of the case and lacks an enthusiasm for it, or a lawyer who has deep passion,
skill and the depth of resources to put forth your sound argument? I would take
the latter any day, as would you.

Regardless of what the attackers of AG
Herring may say, I doubt that the defenders of the amendment truly want the AG’s office
arguing the case. Though he may not defend the amendment, it should be noted
that the AG has not sent out instructions to county clerks to start issuing
wedding license to gay couples. Rather, he is allowing existing cases to move
through the courts being argued by some of its strongest advocates, and awaiting
the results. That I can respect. Advocates defending the amendment and the leading voices attacking
the AG know full well that if the AG defended the amendment, he could more readily
bring about results in keeping with his views by not using the strongest
arguments or poorly phrasing the strongest arguments for the amendment. That would be a travesty. Hence,
the statements by the AG’s attackers are more about political posturing,
stirring the base, raising funds and bullying than about the righteousness of
their case against the AG not defending the amendment.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

For conservative
Christians Virginia is the latest battleground over the acceptance of gay relationships and legalization of gay marriage. The issue is a heated one, and for many conservative Christians it is a battle to be strongly waged as if the future of the Christian faith and the church depended on the result. To say that for some it is a highly emotional issue would be an understatement.

This author recognizes many evangelical
and fundamentalist Christians take issue with using of the phrase “conservative
Christian” to describe them and their stance against gay marriage. They argue with
fervent passion that there is nothing “conservative” about them, particularly
on this matter. No descriptive term is necessary for they are Christians period, Christians
defending their faith against an ungodly dangerous lifestyle and to prevent such relationships from
being viewed by the American culture, laws and the church as a whole, as an
acceptable relationship equal to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that
has existed from the beginning of time across diverse cultures.

Given that
evangelicalism is my faith heritage and education, I understand why many of my friends take
issue with my use of “conservative Christians”. The term is used intentionally
to distinguish my personal faith background against Christians from faith
backgrounds in which there is are higher levels of openness to gay marriages. I acknowledge that for some
of my friends the use of the term “conservative
Christian” as related to gay marriage would imply that it is possible for a true Christian, lead and sensitive to God's Spirit, and accept gay marriages at the same time. Such friends would dismiss such openness as being possible, that if these individuals Christians, then they are either deceived by Satan, or they are not being obedient to the Christ.

Some of those in this camp do go
as far as to imply, or even state openly, that anyone who supports gay marriage
that they are definitely not all Christian but individuals playing with religion. I take a different position. I will not
question the depth and nature of another's faith who is not part of my congregation. On a host of issues, whether
those issues be about smoking or alcohol consumption, church polity or worship structure,
holding that Saturday or Sunday is the proper Sabbath day for Christians, how one dresses at church, going to
restaurants or shopping on the Sabbath, views on how and who is saved or the nature
of holiness, I will not, and cannot, judge those who are outside my faith tradition. I may not agree with one's beliefs but I have no standing to judge them.

For decades I
have held onto a significant and often overlooked teaching by Paul in I Corinthians 5. In that chapter
Paul addresses the issue of a man in their church who is having an ongoing affair
with his step-mother. The tense of the verb is clear, it is not a accidental lost control type of thing. Rather than a moment in
time affair, it is an ongoing one that started well before and which appears will continue long into the future. After
Paul condemns the church leadership for not dealing with the man, he then
deals with the man. The passage is clear, the man is the member of that congregation, the woman is not. Paul judges the man and instructs the church leadership to expel the
man least his attitude infect and harm others in the congregation. At the same time Paul states this about the woman, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside
the church?...God will judge those outside.”

For Paul the congregational leadership has the right to judge their congregational
members only, and not those outside their congregation. If I take that the entire Bible is God's divine Word then I cannot overlook this instruction and go forth to judge and condemn others who are not part of the congregation to which I belong. I have to resist the temptation to put myself in the roll of God. I cannot overlook or find some way to rationalize in my mind the dismissing of what these two short passages clearly state. I shall not and will not
judge those who testify to being Christians but who are of a different tradition,
who think, believe and live differently on a host of matters.